“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

This self is also a director of dream activities. It is in some ways an intermediate self. You realize that all these terms are basically artificial, for simplicity’s sake. There are no real divisions to the self, though you may feel at times self-divided.

You are practically aware in everyday life now of a self who watches the self. This is important. For later you will be aware of a self who watches this self, and I want you to note the difference.

You have by now become acquainted with a self you did not know before our sessions, a self who keeps watch upon both the ego and the subconscious. This is no longer theory to you, for you are practically aware of the self in an evergrowing fashion.

The overly conscientious self is also deeply emotional, though in Ruburt it often hides under the guise of intellectualism. In one way the spontaneous self used the church as long as it could, as an outlet for its own rich emotional extension. The overly conscientious self fears to use the word of God, or the word God. [...] In actuality the overly conscientious self has not been educated, and is deeply terrified that Ruburt is taking false gods.

[...] The spontaneous self was the first to break away, and forcibly. [...] Now a whole new uniting principle has been realized by the spontaneous self, but little attempt was made to enlarge the definitions of good on the part of the overly conscientious self.

Some of the very attitudes considered good by the spontaneous self were diametrically opposed to the ideas of good held by the overly conscientious self. [...] The direction of the writing changed, and this further seemed to threaten basic held inner beliefs of the overly conscientious self.

It is also true however that this lack of boundary allows for possibilities of development and expansion that would be impossible with a limited self. The self is not nebulous. [...] Any self, therefore, is never the same self, but action contains within itself its own comprehension.

You may also be part of a self operating within other fields, and operating also within another system of units. The inner self operates as a relay station, as a reference point for the various seemingly disconnected selves. It is only through contact with the inner self that knowledge of the whole self can be found.

[...] The self, or a self, is not any particular thing, as I told you. It is true that there are no boundaries to enclose it within safe confines, where it can be said, “Here is the self.”

When your words disagreed with his spontaneous self severe conflicts arose. [...] You were through your art however also connected to his spontaneous self. Originally you saw Ruburt as the spontaneous self, and your ideas of discipline were quickly gobbled up by the overly conscientious self before you recognized its existence.

The spontaneous self represents basic abilities. The super-conscientious self represents the purposes to which these abilities will be put—how and when they shall be used. The super-conscientious self is the motivation power or purpose.

The energy of the overly conscientious self is as strong as that of the spontaneous self, hence the impasse that had been reached. [...]

[...] When you find yourself, so to speak, watching what you think of as the ego, then you are in contact with this portion of the self. [...] I have hinted before of these matters, for when I say that you will use this other portion of the self to examine waking consciousness and probe beneath it, I already presuppose a you that uses this self. In other words, you are already magnifying the limitations of the self and extending them.

Various levels of consciousness are projected from the self in much the same manner. They are united however as interior and subsidiary identities that are a part of your own, and they are sent out by the inner self for various reasons. [...] The self may send out fragments of itself in projections. These may or may not be structured personalized identities though they will be dependent for their existence upon the whole self.

It goes without saying that the part that watches also belongs to the self, but it does not belong to the self as the self is thought of in usual psychological terms. [...]

So far in our discussion, then, we have an inner self, dwelling primarily in a mental or psychic dimension, dreaming itself into physical form, and finally forming a body consciousness. To that body consciousness the inner self gives “its own body of physical knowledge,” the vast reservoir of physical achievement that it has triumphantly produced. [...] The body’s consciousness is hardly to be considered less than your own, or as inferior to that of your inner self, since it represents knowledge from the inner self, and is a part of the inner self’s own consciousness—the part delegated to the body.

[...] The best analogy I can think of is that up to that time the self was like a psychological rubber band, snapping inward and outward with great force and vitality, but without any kind of rigid-enough psychological framework to maintain a physical stance. The inner self still related to dream reality, while the body’s orientation and the body consciousness attained, as was intended, a great sense of physical adventure, curiosity, speculation, wonder—and so once again the inner self put a portion of its consciousness in a different parcel, so to speak. As once it had formed the body consciousness, now it formed a physically attuned consciousness, a self whose desires and intents would be oriented in a way that, alone, the inner self could not be.

(All with emphatic rhythm:) The inner self was too aware of its own multidimensionality, so in your terms it gave psychological birth to itself through the body in space and time. [...] That portion of the self is the portion you recognize as your usual conscious self, alive within the scheme of seasons, aware within the designs of time, caught transfixed in moments of brilliant awareness, with civilizations that seem to come and go. That is the self that is alert in the dear preciseness of the moments, whose physical senses are bound to light and darkness, sound and touch. That is the self that lives the life of the body.

An individual or a self also cannot hide from others his own basic intent. [...] Along these lines there is much to be said in that many intangibles, considered most secret by the self, do not remain within the self. No skin or bones or skeletal cage can keep the thought of the self from going outward.

The self, then, is far from limited even on your own plane. I mentioned, or hinted however that the influence of the self, and therefore the self itself, also had reaching effects in realities that did not consist of a space-time continuum. This would have to follow if my statement that the self is truly limitless is true.

As I have said, there are gentle, imperceptible gradations between what is called self and what is called notself. [...] The self indeed however reaches out in many ways to form, mold and construct his own environment, even as it in turn reaches out to affect his core of self.

The energy of this inner self is used by it to form from itself—from inner experience—a material counterpart in which the outer ego then can act out its role. The outer ego then acts out a play that the inner self has written. [...] It is to say that the outer ego is far less conscious than the inner ego, that its perception is less, that it is far less stable though it makes great pretense of stability, that it springs from the inner self and is therefore less, rather than more, aware.

[...] The inner ego is another term for what we call the inner self. As the outer ego manipulates within the physical environment, so the inner ego or self organizes and manipulates with an inner reality. [...]

All the richly creative original work that is done by this inner self is not unconscious. [...] Jung’s dark side of the self is the ego, not the unconscious. [...]

[...] For material on the inner ego, the self-conscious self behind the self-conscious self, see the 28th session.

This, when it occurs, and this particular formation into a self may or may not occur, but when it occurs it is a result of our second previously mentioned dilemma. The self as you know it is in actuality a self plus an ego.

The self, then, is not static by any means. [...] The term itself is used only for convenience; and indeed the concept of the self is a concept of the ego, which considers itself the self.

What you are after is the recognition by the immediate self of the larger inner self of which it is part. [...] Until finally the immediate self and the inner self are one.

We have been dealing with the condition of the immediate self in its response to environment and situations. This immediate self is not isolated however from other portions of the entire personality. [...]

[...] The inner self knows, but the immediate self does not recognize their answers. [...]

[...] As I have told you, the self is literally unlimited. [...] Therefore physical matter can be legitimately described as an extension of the self, as much as the physical body is a projection of the inner self. [...]

Throughout the ages some have recognized the fact that there is self-consciousness and purpose in certain dream and sleep states, and have maintained, even in waking life, the sense of continuity of this inner self. [...] When such knowledge is gained, the ego can accept it, for it finds to its surprise that it is not less conscious, but more conscious, that its limitations are dissipated; now it is not true, and I emphasize this strongly, that so-called unconscious material, given any freedom, will draw energy away from the egotistically organized self in a normal personality.

[...] The inner ego is another term for what we call the inner self. As the outer ego manipulates within the environment and physical reality, so the inner ego or self organizes and manipulates within an inner reality. [...]

[...] When he looks to the right you say “This is my conscious self.” [...] You say “This is the dreaming self.” The dreaming self, or if you will, the left-handed self, indeed is as important as the so-called conscious self. The whole self merely changes direction and viewpoint, and focuses its energies along a particular line.

The self, in this manner, looks about. The direction in which the self looks is not the self. In dreams the self looks elsewhere, and the “I” is a conscious “I”, and the working ability is tremendous. The inner self perceives realities that it observes in many directions, being free from the intense focus within limited directions of camouflage existence.

I am, again, not minimizing the practical necessity for the conscious self as it appears to be. But man is much more than the conscious self, and what he calls the conscious self is merely the whole self as seen through the direction in which the whole self chooses to direct its energies and focus.

(Now I did mention to Jane perhaps the overriding question I have, and have often puzzled about: the intensity of her personality’s response to the idea of the Sinful Self. Though, as I said, I didn’t think of her Sinful Self as something entirely separate from other portions of her personality, but as a part of them. Why didn’t the “Sinful Self” get the message that it’s gone too far, and back off at least somewhat so that the whole personality had room to breathe—to begin physical recovery, in other words? Its actions, as they are, are clearly self-defeating. [...]

[...] For some time there was no direct challenge, however, made to the Sinful Self once Ruburt left the church. His creative abilities were growing and developing, his concepts enlarging, but he was for some time so convinced of science’s viewpoint that the ideas of the Sinful Self were looked upon as unworthy and superstitious. [...] To go ahead creatively, forming new versions of a spiritual reality, to state that man and his impulses were good, brought him finally into direct conflict with the old beliefs of the Sinful Self, whose value system was based upon the idea that the self was indeed sinful, not to be trusted. [...]

Beside this, people were reading our books, so to the Sinful Self Ruburt was leading those people astray (deliberately). [...] The natural self operates within a state of grace, by whatever name, a state that allows for spontaneity, and implies self-trust. [...]

“Imagine the whole self as composed of some master tape. [...] Each one represents a portion of the whole self, each existing in a different dimension, yet all a part of the whole self [or tape]. [...]

[...] A portion of your whole self is quite involved in these probable events, however. The I of your dreams can be legitimately compared to the self that experiences probable events. [That I would consider itself fully conscious and view the waking I as the probable self.]

[...] A portion of the self can and does experience events in an entirely different fashion [than the ego does] and this portion goes off on a different tangent. For when your conscious self perceives Event X, this other part of the self branches off, so to speak, into all the other probable events that could have been experienced by the ego.

The ego is the only part of the self that regards physical objects as anything but symbols. It is highly difficult for other parts of the self to experience the ego for this reason. [...] To the inner self neither house nor walls exist. They are perceived only as vague self-limiting ideas on the ego’s part.

You can within them often perceive both your past and present simultaneously, but this has always been a characteristic of the whole self in any case. The whole self is not bound by any system. At various times more of the abilities of the whole self intrude, so to speak, upon the ego system. [...]

Communications exist between all portions of the self, and all parts of the personality; or parts of the whole self, rather, operate as what you may call a supraself. [...] This is the identity, the whole identity, of the various portions of the self that operate within various systems. [...]

(I added that I’d had no idea that the idea of the Sinful Self occupied that prominent and basic a position in her life. It was beginning to look as if the Sinful Self concept occupied the central position in her beliefs. It would make a lot of sense, I said, if it were true, and would account for things like an obsession with work, giving up other life activities, etc.—all done in a disguised attempt to appease that Sinful Self that merrily carried on year after year.... “But in a funny way that may be okay,” I mused, “because if that’s it, we now know where we can grab hold of the Sinful Self, once we know what we’re doing, not groping around in a morass of suppositions and speculations.”)

In the light of this discussion, now, that self was as unrealistic at its end of the spectrum as the Sinful Self was at the other, for Ruburt felt that he was supposed to demonstrate a certain kind of superhuman feat, not only managing on occasion to uncover glimpses of man’s greater abilities, but to demonstrate these competently at the drop of a hat, willingly at the request of others. At the same time he believed he was the Sinful Self, and that expression was highly dangerous—so between those two frameworks, the psychological organization, he operated as best he could, still seeking toward the natural value fulfillment that was his natural heritage. [...]

So we must now show Ruburt the source of the Sinful Self to begin with, and convince him that such is not his natural self at all and to do so we will to some extent at least go into his early background. The main thrust, however, will be the need for expression and value fulfillment that to one extent or another has always been impeded by the beliefs inherent in the entire Sinful-Self concept. [...]

(I hadn’t deliberately planned that those notes would do that, yet in retrospect I was glad they had—especially in the unprecedented response Jane was getting from her Sinful Self. [...] The Sinful Self’s material is too long and complicated to describe here, except to say that it contains the Sinful Self’s own view of reality and its relationship to Jane’s background and work, it’s regrets, its defensive attitudes, its questions, and its genuine puzzlement that man has for so long —perhaps for most of history, indeed—persisted in the creation of and reliance upon such entities as the Sinful Self. [...]

[...] Ruburt’s message from “The Sinful Self” is a case in point, for it represents a response both to my material and to a question of your own. It gives a clear declaration of the Sinful Self’s attitudes in the past, and its new growing recognition that those attitudes have been unfortunate. The Sinful Self has also raised some questions that are pertinent, and with which we will shortly deal. [...]

[...] I told her, feeling that only good could come out of such a dialogue between parts of the overall self or personality. [...] I wondered how often such a clear-cut dialogue or exchange was on record as having taken place between such various portions of the self. [...]

The personality is not the whole self. It is a portion of the whole self, which is activated during a particular existence. [...] However, it must always be remembered here that the ego is not the self-conscious self in its entirety by any means. It is simply a portion, a field of focus whereby the self attempts to objectify itself within the world of matter.

[...] This consciousness-of-self—I suggest hyphens between consciousness-of-self—this consciousness-of-self is seen in man as personality, as the human personality. [...]

Therefore, consciousness-of-self can appear with or without the existence of an ego. Consciousness-of-self is an attribute then of all physical species, regardless of their classification. Personality, human personality, is simply the name given to this class of self, as applied and seen within human beings. [...]

Now this event X is only one of a literally numberless amount of probable events which the conscious self could experience. For its purposes however the conscious self chooses this particular event X. But again, this event X, until the conscious self experiences it, is only one of many other probable events, different in no basic manner from the others. It becomes real, actual and different from those other probable events, only when it is experienced by our conscious self, or by this conscious self.

[...] There is however a portion of the self that can and does experience events in an entirely different fashion, and this portion of the self goes off on a different tangent. For when our individual perceives event X, this other portion of the self branches off, so to speak, into all the other probable events that could have been just as easily experienced by the ego.

[...] In the same manner there is no basic reason why one self, or rather one portion of the self, has its main experiences in one dimension, while other portions of the self experience reality within different fields.

Again, it is important that you not accuse the Sinful Self (which I took to be a reference to our discussion last Friday). [...] (Pause.) It deepens the Sinful Self’s sense of isolation. [...] The Sinful Self did not have a free hand, for example, bringing about physical difficulties all by itself. [...] The Sinful Self is not the “villain.” [...]

It is important that the creative self understands what has been going on also. In such a way the various portions of the personality can reinforce and help each other, and the Sinful Self can see that the creative elements are not blind to its worries, but will also use its abilities to help discover explanations and answers to the questions of the so-called Sinful Self. [...]

[...] There may be a communication of one kind or another directly from the creative self to the Sinful Self, for example, in which those issues are sympathetically addressed. There certainly will be dreams and other such events that serve as communications from one portion of the self to another—and these may be initiated from any portion. [...]